Letter: Esther Rantzen's porn paradox

Peter Cave
Thursday 19 September 1996 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: Esther Rantzen, in supporting the censorship of Mapplethorpe's photograph Rosie (Letters, 18 September), unwittingly generates a paradox. She suggests that you ought not to criticise photographs unless you have seen them. Having seen Rosie, she believes the photograph to be exploitative and pornographic and that therefore it should not be on public view.

If Ms Rantzen is right that photographs should not be criticised until seen, she is seeking to ensure that I and others are in no position to criticise Rosie. Being critically impotent in this way, I and others should therefore offer no support for her criticism of the photograph and hence no support for the censorship.

PETER CAVE

London NW3

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in